Bradford v. Davis et al

Filing 26

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 7/26/2013 why Defendant, Doug Ridenour has not filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint. Show Cause Response due by 8/12/2013.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

DEVON BRADFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT DOUG RIDENOUR HAS
NOT FILED AN ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

v.
RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

15

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Devon Bradford (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Randy Davis, John Corrico, Doug
19 Ridenour, Jacob Weiser and Paul MacDonald (“Defendants”).
20

The Court reviewed the record in this case and noted that there is no answer on record for

21 Defendant Doug Ridenour.

The answer filed on March 26, 2013 was filed on behalf of

22 Defendants Randy Davis, John Corrico, Jacob Keiser and Paul MacDonald. (ECF No. 16.)
23 However, a waiver of service was returned executed by James F. Wilson, Esq. on behalf of Doug
24 Ridenour on February 23, 2013. (ECF No. 15.) Mr. Wilson is the attorney of record for
25 Defendants Davis, Corrico, Keiser and MacDonald. It is unclear why Mr. Wilson filed an
26 answer on behalf of Defendants Davis, Corrico, Keiser and MacDonald, but not on behalf of
27 Defendant Ridenour.
28 / / /

1

1

Since there is no answer on file for Defendant Ridenour, he is susceptible to entry of

2 default and default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. However, the
3 Court notes that Defendant Ridenour’s failure to answer may be a typographical error and his
4 name was inadvertently omitted from the answer on file. To avoid needless delay and costs
5 associated with entering and vacating default, the Court will order Defendants to show cause
6 why Defendant Ridenour has not filed an answer to the complaint. To the extent that Defendant
7 Ridenour’s name was inadvertently omitted from the answer on file, Defendants are ordered to
8 file an amended answer within fourteen (14) days. If Defendant Ridenour was deliberately left
9 off the answer on file, Defendants shall so inform the Court within fourteen (14) days.
10

In accordance with the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall

11 SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Ridenour has not filed an answer to the complaint within
12 fourteen (14) days.
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated:

July 26, 2013

_

16

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2